GHOSTBUSTERS Pre-Release - film discussion only, no social commentary please!

[KrangPrime]

I don't think that part is an entirely accurate characterization, although it's certainly true that a VERY vocal part of the anti-Ghostbusters people ARE sexist a-holes. .

I'd disagree with that. I think a vast majority of the major idiots are just people who'd be upset with anything, wether it was ghostbusters or not.
And i'm STILL not convinced it's not sony employees creating their own controversy by going around posting the worst of the stuff.

although, a vast amount of the ghostbuster fans i've run into elsewhere are just plain old a holes. there's reasons why i avoid dedicated boards on the topic and only browse..

 

[AJTaliesen]

They help make the brand more reliable. But the fan dollars? Not critical to the success of the film itself. Ergo, those fans can generally be ignored.

I agree that many studios do mistakenly think that way, but it's a very short sighted attitude.

It MIGHT have been true in 1982 when people with different interests were more compartmentalized, but even then I doubt it. Bad press from people who normally like that genre hurts big time.

You do need to reach beyond core fans, since the perception is that core fans will like anything and are not terribly discerning, but if you're the rare one that even the core fans reject, then you're basically the Fantastic Four. It becomes a case where everyone thinks it MUST suck if even comic book fans didnt like it...they'll watch ANYTHING with a superhero in it.

It's the MINIMUM requirement. It's true that it should never be the goal, but failing to hit it at all IS a big problem.

 

[Solo4114]

Actually, I think the real problem with Fantastic Four wasn't that it didnt' appeal to core fans, but rather that it didn't appeal to anyone else.

Core fans routinely overestimate their own value in the grand scheme of things. When studios are chasing every dollar they can get from China, do you think they really care what core fans think? We are secondary at best, and more likely tertiary. The general public doesn't look to core fans for advice on whether to go see a film. They look to their local newspapers or Gene Shalit or whomever else for a review. Or they look at The AV Club or Birth. Death. Movies. or any number of other sites out there. But it's not as if they say "Wait a minute! The Trekkies HATED the new JJ film! We shouldn't go see it."

Now, this is different with huge franchises like Star Wars, but with niche properties like Ghostbusters, it doesn't really matter. Or with a property that has multiple generations of fans like Transformers.

I mean, look at it this way. Remember JJ Abrams' "Warp Nacelles Quarterly" quip? He was right. It didn't matter that the hardcore Trek fans didn't like ST09. The film was a box office success. Same with the second film. Now, with the third film, that may change, but that, I think, is less down to the hardcore fans and more down to the fact that Star Wars is back, so Star Trek: Summer Blockbuster Edition is no longer as relevant. People can get their big action scifi blockbuster fix from other sources.

But generally speaking, the people who, say, collected every issue of Marvel's G.I. Joe run and could recite the action figures' file cards back to you verbatim? Nobody gives a crap if they didn't like The Rise of Cobra or whatever the second film was called. They aren't the target audience. The target audience is people who are vaguely familiar with the brand itself...and that's about it. In fact, the more passing the familiarity, the better, because there's no need to adhere to established "rules" or whathaveyou.

In some circumstances, this can go awry, but a lot of that depends on the franchise itself and how high profile it really is. Batman v. Superman was problematic because (A) it wasn't all that good a film, and (B) it seriously mucked with the traditional interpretation of the characters in ways that were obvious to even passing fans. But still, the studios aren't trying to appeal to the person who knows who, say, Denny O'Neil or Paul Dini are, or the people who can tell you every variation of the Batmobile that's ever existed. Those people are "nice to have" but not necessary.

 

[KrangPrime]

I would like to think that is only because geek things are 'in' right now. wait ten years when the general casuals tire of super hero films, and see if that is still the case. then, I think, they'll be going back after the people who made them what they are. and lets face it, without the core audience keeping it alive all those years, your property would be dead in the water and you wouldn't HAVE that chance to market it toward the people who generally wouldn't care.

All we are getting these days are reboots that keep the very basic core elements, and none of the cool or heart. and that's sad, because that is what the general public thinks is great and eats it up like it's in short supply.

Don't like justin beiber voicing kitt? sorry old man, you don't count untill your dollar is the only one left. as long as the general formula of 'basic splotsions and hot star of the moment' works....nothing is going to change..

 

[Wes R]

While appealing to fans is one thing the fact that the trailer for this movie has nearly a set a record for down votes should worry them as it makes it seem like it isn't really appealing to anyone. It could just be everyone down voting it for the hell of it but it's still something these folks should keep an eye on, and insulting any part of a fan-base is bad as it makes you look like bad to those who still like your work. Even McCarthy called out the trailer as making no sense and being confusing. I think the only people this movie is really going to be a hit with are the under 25 crowd who don't remember the original or hate things older than them.

 

[batguy]

The situation with diehard franchise fans versus studios . . . it's a tricky one.


The studios don't make reboots for diehards. And diehards are usually not the right people to make the reboots (except when they also happen to be mainstream filmmaker - and sometimes not even then).

But diehards DO have very good B.S. detectors when a reboot is going wrong. They often call out a foul-up pretty early in the process without much information to go on.

 

[karmajay]

Feig posted something this weekend that showed his "geek call out" was actually from an interview at the beginning of 2015 and had nothing to do with Ghostbusters. IMO, the premise still stands, geeks are definitely some of the most entitled whiners around.

 

[Snikt]

Feig posted something this weekend that showed his "geek call out" was actually from an interview at the beginning of 2015 and had nothing to do with Ghostbusters. IMO, the premise still stands, geeks are definitely some of the most entitled whiners around.

Yeah, but then its also not that hard to please them, the director just needs to get the damn characters right. I love me some Ghostbusters, but from what I have seen from the trailer, its a blatant cash grab that isnt adding to the mythos or anything. It just doesnt look funny at all. And I think Wiig and Mccarthy can be good for some laughs if written properly.

 

[AJTaliesen]

But it's not as if they say "Wait a minute! The Trekkies HATED the new JJ film! We shouldn't go see it."

Now, this is different with huge franchises like Star Wars, but with niche properties like Ghostbusters, it doesn't really matter. Or with a property that has multiple generations of fans like Transformers.

I mean, look at it this way. Remember JJ Abrams' "Warp Nacelles Quarterly" quip? He was right. It didn't matter that the hardcore Trek fans didn't like ST09. The film was a box office success. Same with the second film. .

This is why I think you really haven't thought this through. That's a terrible example. The new Star Trek hasn't fared well in the years since, but every one of us went to see it and the initial fan response was overwhelmingly positive. So much so that we all went and saw the sequel as well. He met the minimum bar.

As I said, and I feel I was clear: you should aim for more, not the minimum, so no, he did not cater specifically to the hardcore fans...that would be foolish. But to openly ignore the base of your audience and miss the minimum would have been suicidal. The Trekkies went to BOTH movies...AND bought a crapton of merch. If they hadn't...absolutely no one would have said "Boy...the sci fi fans actually arent liking it...maybe we should go, might be a solid Romcom!" The sci fi fans need to be drooling before the non geeks will even consider going.

 

[KrangPrime]

But diehards DO have very good B.S. detectors when a reboot is going wrong. They often call out a foul-up pretty early in the process without much information to go on.

and most people would agree with us, until you get into millenials posting on the internet. who, for some reason don't trust our instincts off the bat, and say 'you have to wait for a trailer'. and when the trailer hits and doesn't change our mind, they try to guilt trip us and say , among other things, 'now you have to wait for the movie. your criticism means nothing unless you've seen the movie'. so, I see the movie...and then it turns out my initial gut feeling was right all along.. I had that argument happen for me with Turtles...and with Feigbusters. The only thing that would get me to check out feigbusters at this point, is morbid curiosity. And I'd only go see it inthe theaters if I could pay for another movie to gain entry and get a ticket for feigbusters instead. will have to remember to ask my local theater that when I go see civil war. I refuse to give this a dime.

As for the feig comments..

Does anyone not supporting the movie recall how the initial comments came about? To me,this just seems like he's back peddling faster than a drunken lemming walking away from the cliff instead of towards it. like he had a bad day, said something he shouldn't, and is now going around trying to undo the damage.

To me, part of this whole mess seems to be to try and build up good will around feig....since they can't do it with the actual movie. and hope enough people feel sorry for him and his bullied past to at least fill butts in the seats for the first two weekends before word gets out.

Call me cynical, but I wouldn't put it past sony at this point for more free publicity.

 

[karmajay]

Does anyone not supporting the movie recall how the initial comments came about? To me,this just seems like he's back peddling faster than a drunken lemming walking away from the cliff instead of towards it. like he had a bad day, said something he shouldn't, and is now going around trying to undo the damage.

Read for yourself - http://comicbook.com/2016/05/10/ghostbusters-director-paul-feig-clarifies-geek-community-comment/

And last week, Feig appeared to add to that pile of slime. He was quoted in a New York Daily News article, coming off as though he was bashing geek culture as a whole; however, the comments are over a year old, right after he announced his four female leads, and were actually meant for a hateful sub-group of geek culture.

The New York Daily News has corrected that story, and now Feig has issued a statement clarifying his geek culture remarks.
“The quotes from me in a New York Daily News article on Monday, May 2nd, 2016, were not from a recent interview but from an interview I did for a book on geek culture a year and a half ago that the author then sold to the Daily News, misrepresenting them as being my response to recentGhostbusters reporting. The Daily News ran a correction yesterday, May 7th, for which I am grateful. To clarify, the interview actually took place on February 9th, 2015, one and a half weeks after I had first announced my Ghostbusters cast via Twitter, a week and a half that saw my actors and I inundated with some of the most hateful tweets, posts and comments I had ever seen. My quote was in answer to the question, ‘Has the paradigm shifted to a point where (because geek culture is currently so popular) the geek is the a--hole now?’ I very much regret saying in my answer that I had actually met any a--holes from the geek community. I have never met anyone from the geek world face-to-face who wasn’t a warm, kind person. The ‘a--holes’ of which I speak are the ones who live online, who write those hateful tweets and posts and comments. I’m not talking about the people who have true concerns and worries about the rebooting of a franchise they love, nor am I talking about people who have watched the trailer for our movie and didn’t like it. Those are all valid opinions and I respect them all. I am talking about those that write misogyny and hate and threats. Those are the ‘********’ of which I spoke. As a lifelong geek and proud member of the geek community (as well as the creator of the TV series Freaks and Geeks), I abhor bullies. Every community has bullies who make up a very small minority of the community as a whole. Bullies scream the loudest and seem to get the most attention. But they are simply bullies who in no way represent the vast majority of wonderful, thoughtful people who make up our geek community. The geek world has been a haven for so many of us and we should all refuse to let these bullies hijack the conversations and debates we all love to engage in, nor should we let them represent our community and culture to the rest of the world. The bullies are not the norm and I would dare say they are not even true geeks. They are the micro minority. God bless the true geeks of the world and here’s to taking our community back from the bullies.” - Paul Feig

As far as whether the guy's career is in trouble because there is a campaign to hate the new GB, I doubt the studios are worried. Estimated budget was 154 million so we'll see how it does shortly.

Worldwide (Unadjusted)

Rank	Title (click to view)	Studio	Worldwide	Domestic / %	Overseas / %	Year
1	Bridesmaids	Uni.	$288.4	$169.1	58.6%	$119.3	41.4%	2011
2	Spy	Fox	$235.7	$110.8	47%	$124.8	53%	2015
3	The Heat	Fox	$229.9	$159.6	69.4%	$70.3	30.6%	2013
4	Unaccompanied Minors	WB	$21.9	$16.7	75.9%	$5.3	24.1%	2006

Note: Titles in grey are cameo or bit parts and not counted in totals and averages.
Total: $775.9 million

 

[Solo4114]

While appealing to fans is one thing the fact that the trailer for this movie has nearly a set a record for down votes should worry them as it makes it seem like it isn't really appealing to anyone. It could just be everyone down voting it for the hell of it but it's still something these folks should keep an eye on, and insulting any part of a fan-base is bad as it makes you look like bad to those who still like your work. Even McCarthy called out the trailer as making no sense and being confusing. I think the only people this movie is really going to be a hit with are the under 25 crowd who don't remember the original or hate things older than them.

The trailer down-votes can kinda cut both ways. The downvotes could be the result of "crusaders" doing things like making multiple youtube accounts JUST to downvote the film. Or, it could be a sign of general "WTF is this crap!?" reaction.

The thing that Feig has done -- which is actually kinda brilliant -- is to effectively turn the film from a film into a "cause." So, as much as there are "antis" out there, Feig has helped to publicize them and mobilize a wave of support for the film for almost the exact same reasons. He's cast the "antis" as basically being sexist troglodytes, and helped mobilize the feminist supporters of the film pretty much based on issues such as female representation in Hollywood, the dearth of female-led comedies, and generally wanting to see women succeed in genres beyond just romcoms and damsels in distress/romantic interests in action flicks. These are valid, important issues, but they've completely eclipsed the matter of whether the film is actually entertaining. People are now supporting the film regardless of whether it's any good, simply because it has female leads in a genre where women are underrepresented. I don't consider this "reverse sexism," but it's motivated by the same "Are there women in it? Ok, then my reaction is XYZ," attitude that the anti-Ghostbusters fans (or at least the ones Feig has highlighted) have been motivated by.

The situation with diehard franchise fans versus studios . . . it's a tricky one.


The studios don't make reboots for diehards. And diehards are usually not the right people to make the reboots (except when they also happen to be mainstream filmmaker - and sometimes not even then).

But diehards DO have very good B.S. detectors when a reboot is going wrong. They often call out a foul-up pretty early in the process without much information to go on.

True, but it also really depends on the nature of the complaints. People complaining about things like "Han Solo isn't tall enough in the new Young Han Solo film," or "The ship design looks like the warp nacelles are too fat" or "Superman's costume should be a brighter shade of blue" are generally ignored (and often rightly so). People complaining about things like "This film looks totally generic. Seriously, there's NOTHING of the original characters in this film other than their names," that's a little different. The latter category, though, isn't even always important because what really matters is the general public's reaction.

This is why I think you really haven't thought this through. That's a terrible example. The new Star Trek hasn't fared well in the years since, but every one of us went to see it and the initial fan response was overwhelmingly positive. So much so that we all went and saw the sequel as well. He met the minimum bar.

As I said, and I feel I was clear: you should aim for more, not the minimum, so no, he did not cater specifically to the hardcore fans...that would be foolish. But to openly ignore the base of your audience and miss the minimum would have been suicidal. The Trekkies went to BOTH movies...AND bought a crapton of merch. If they hadn't...absolutely no one would have said "Boy...the sci fi fans actually arent liking it...maybe we should go, might be a solid Romcom!" The sci fi fans need to be drooling before the non geeks will even consider going.

Uh...I don't know what forums you've been on, but my recollection was that there was plenty of dissatisfaction with the film, primarily because it "wasn't Star Trek." And it wasn't, really. It was more a generic space adventure with a Star Trek iPhone case. People also had issues with the second one, especially in the use of "Khan/Not Khan/Ok, yeah, he's Khan."

But in the end, it didn't matter. The films made plenty of money. They've since fallen out of favor, but I'd argue that's as much due to the return of Star Wars and the fact that JJ's Trek series was basically filling a void that no longer needs to be filled, thereby rendering them obsolete and pointless.

I don't think the goal is usually to alienate the core fans, but rather that where there's a conflict between appealing to core fans and appealing to the broader audience, the core fans will lose out every single time because they're, ultimately, secondary at best.

 

[batguy]

True, but it also really depends on the nature of the complaints. People complaining about things like "Han Solo isn't tall enough in the new Young Han Solo film," or "The ship design looks like the warp nacelles are too fat" or "Superman's costume should be a brighter shade of blue" are generally ignored (and often rightly so). People complaining about things like "This film looks totally generic. Seriously, there's NOTHING of the original characters in this film other than their names," that's a little different. The latter category, though, isn't even always important because what really matters is the general public's reaction.

If the remake looks bad, the diehards will bash it, period.

If the remake looks good, the diehards will give split feedback: bashing it over details while being hopeful about other aspects of the project.


No group gives flawless predictions. I'm sure we can all think of a list of times the diehards were wrong. But overall I think they are good at calling it, in light of how little they might know. Studio people can have access to a full script & see the dailies and still not predict it much better.

 

[KrangPrime]

The trailer down-votes can kinda cut both ways. The downvotes could be the result of "crusaders" doing things like making multiple youtube accounts JUST to downvote the film. Or, it could be a sign of general "WTF is this crap!?" reaction.

The thing that Feig has done -- which is actually kinda brilliant -- is to effectively turn the film from a film into a "cause." So, as much as there are "antis" out there, Feig has helped to publicize them and mobilize a wave of support for the film for almost the exact same reasons. He's cast the "antis" as basically being sexist troglodytes, and helped mobilize the feminist supporters of the film pretty much based on issues such as female representation in Hollywood, the dearth of female-led comedies, and generally wanting to see women succeed in genres beyond just romcoms and damsels in distress/romantic interests in action flicks. These are valid, important issues, but they've completely eclipsed the matter of whether the film is actually entertaining. People are now supporting the film regardless of whether it's any good, simply because it has female leads in a genre where women are underrepresented. I don't consider this "reverse sexism," but it's motivated by the same "Are there women in it? Ok, then my reaction is XYZ," attitude that the anti-Ghostbusters fans (or at least the ones Feig has highlighted) have been motivated by.

I want to reply to this properly, but the reply would come dangerously close to violating thread TOS rules.

I'll just leave it at, I'd like to think ever since Princess Lea, I'd assumed we as a normal society have moved past the point of 'women in hollywood' role, and that they can do anything. except for people like feig and pascal, who arn't happy with the car. they want the whole car company and force people to think the way they want the car designed.. What feig has basically done isn't brilliant. he's using millennial social justice warriors who are afraid to speak their mind like us old farts to promote the movie for him. that way, they can be liked like they want, and the movie can gain at least some support it otherwise wouldn't have if it was all men. about the only 'brilliant' part is that it gets a year of free clickbait advertising.. although, go to far, and you get idiots like that IGN video and the comments they made about fans. that one already has 14,000 down votes lol ;o).

The brilliant part would be if he actually, you know, wrote a good movie that could appeal to all without a hate campaign. and that's really all it is...
I still stand by the fact that the ONLY reason the general publics reaction matters, is because nerd things are popular right now. Take away that general audience that made Bay Turtles $450 million in sales (excuse me while I throw up) and you'll go back to catering to the guy who worries about fat ugly enterprise nacelles. and that was one enterprise i didn't mind seeing destroyed cause it had no character.

I think with star trek, it's a case of 'fool me twice'. The CAST is there(I love simon peg as scotty.....chekov however needs to be recast ;o)), for it to be good. it's just the material they are given. whoever is writing it clearly doesn't understand what made star trek GOOD, in an attempt to bring it in to the 21st century properly. and I Fear even if Beyond is good, people will have been burned twice and stay away. at least I hope. The new star trek series is oddly taking place in the original universe, which is itself an odd decision if the new movie verse is really so popular.


Some analysist said he thinks feigbusters can make $256 million (either opening weekend or in total, I can't remember). considering the general public helped make turtles that much money, I'd like to say with a straight face that it's impossible for that to happen...but these days......sigh.

 

[karmajay]

'll just leave it at, I'd like to think ever since Princess Lea, I'd assumed we as a normal society have moved past the point of 'women in hollywood' role, and that they can do anything. except for people like feig and pascal, who arn't happy with the car.

You mean the fact that there was one main woman in the whole Star Wars universe at that time should be proof towards your argument? (I guess you could count Mon Monthra if you like). Women still make less money (see most recent X-files) plus plenty of other things women have to deal with (see casting). "Women are equal in Hollywood" is a very silly stance to make.

It is important all types of movies get made with women in the top roles so 50% of the population can see themselves in those roles. No "SWJ" stuff needed to understand that.

Take away that general audience that made Bay Turtles $450 million in sales

Yeah, take away everyone that went and saw the movie and then your argument might make sense (???) I'm not even sure what the point of these arguments are. I'm not sure if the movie will be "good" or not but the level of discontent is astounding. Someone may have to write a thesis on it after the movie comes out!

 

[KrangPrime]

I'm not sure if the movie will be "good" or not but the level of discontent is astounding. Someone may have to write a thesis on it after the movie comes out!

On both sides. arguments on the supporter end are just as crazy. I agree it would make a good paper though. i've honestly never seen anynthing this crazy before.


I would like to point out to the courts I didn't quite start forbidden topics this time, but I do apologize for continuing it. My trying to do better isn't going all that well, is it ;o)

 

[Krull]

As I've mentioned here I liked the new Star Trek (it's the reason I started watching the original TV show fer gawd's sake) but there IS a difference between ST and Ghostbusters....
With ST they were bright enough to have one of the original crew (Spock) go back in time and then they started redoing the timeline-to me the fans who hate on this is stupid since everything you love is still there and we're just getting a new take on the story,think of it as a "what if" take.

With Ghostbusters the thing is...I dunno,nobody,and I mean nobody I think knows just what the hell this is supposed to be:a remake? A retake on the original? a continuation? WHAT IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE??? mostly I take it to be a remake with some of the original tossed in,remember there were two ghostbuster cartoons in the 80's and this film if it wasn't for some things like ecto-1 you'd think it was a shot at a comedy where we have some ghost hunters or something.

ST is ST all the old crew is there,the ship is there,some of the alien races are there you can't mistake it for something else,this GB has...Ecto-1,the packs (kind of),a mention of the firehouse....the logo and am I missing something? because that's all I see...oh maybe the outfits are..similar...kinda again.

You take those handful of items out and say one or two of the gals are Eddie and Jake's daughters and we'd be damned close to a live action take on the filmation GB....

Does that make sense? that's why this film confuses me,it's not really GB hell if they had Ray or Egon go into an alternate reality and start a GB there and these gals are it in some way I'd accept this film more but as it stands I feel like it's 1986 all over again and this strange GB show is on and how and why isn't it the people from the movie? what is going on? why is this happening??? :wacko

 

[KrangPrime]

star trek is a bit more complicated, i'll give you that. although I agree that the original universe IS most likely still around, if they use the dragonball Z method of time travel. Because spock is still there, he is a tie to that original universe, so the two SPLIT creating a multiverse of sorts. at least that's how I like to think of it.

The problem with star trek is a bit tougher to get around.

But the core issue I have with it is, take away the characters, is it still star trek? or is it galaxy quest 2?

Star trek was never about fancy explosions, and anguished faces, and fast paced adventure. it was more a submarine adventure....human adventure...and exploration.
Redoing wrath of khan for whatever reason was the wrong move for part two, because it shows your not moving forward, just doing what most reboots do, and rehashing what's come before, only with 'better' effects. I think i'd have given part 2 more slack if they'd dropped khan completely and just gone with a rouge star trek captain having a super powerful ship ahead of it's time. that would have been enough plot for one movie if the writers where truly fans of the original universe.

with ghostbusters, it's just more of the same. they are bringing in people who know nothing about the original universe. It happened with Ninja Turtles and michael Bay. Star Trek and JJ. now feigbusters and feig. Thanks to the casual audience eating up anything thrown at them, and if a film fails, hollywood can just reboot it anyway in a few years without even trying...or more importantly, caring.


my head hurts ;o)...

 

[Krull]

My thought on ST is all of the old stuff is still there just,as you say,an alternate reality and things are happening in a different order with Khan being the big thing-the nice thing is if you don't like it don't watch it about all you have to worry about is how the studio handles it,if they're semi smart they can go back and do some next generation ST,original ST or alternate time line original ST it's all there so far as nobody said the new is the ONLY cannon material,and I doubt they will.

GB is just a mess at this point and it's more of a cash grab this-sold-once-let's-make-it-hip-and-sell-it-again mindset,ST at least they have some room to wiggle with.

My two cents,and why I'm displeased with GB as it's a crap bomb with no way out but to say it's new and now we have two versions (or three I guess) of GB.....

 

[KrangPrime]

Saw this online, thought some here would appreciate a slight off topic post.

the FIRST proton pack. notice the date.